Obama Justice Department Political Stunt Leads To Mass Murderer Getting Off The Hook

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Somebody above claims they aren't.

I've been reading some cases about the subject (specifically one that arose when our embassy was attacked in Iran), it's not at all clear cut. For some purpose it is treated as US souil and we have juridiction, for some purposes we don't.

Fern

Peachy. I'm sure that both the Kenyan and Tanzanian govts were entirely happy to have the FBI working with them, and made every effort to aid in the investigation. It's not like the invasion of Iraq, at all. We cooperated with friendly govts to solve crimes and to apprehend the perps.

Clearly, for the purposes of the trial at hand, the US had sufficient jurisdiction to try one of the perps. We may or may not grant extradition requests, if made, from either govt wrt the felon in question.

Fair enough?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
McVeigh's crime was committed here on US soil. It is irrelevent, because the crux of this issue is the location of the crime - not on US soil, and the inherent problems of using our (domestic) civilian criminal court system to prosecute non-US citizens for crimes committed abroad.

Well, please explain those inherent problems. Mentioning that they exist, it seems the least you could do.

Fern said:
So you are recommending that our FBI run around in other countries acting as if they have juridiction?

Nope.
Fern said:
Should authorities from other countries likewise have free rein in the USA?
Also nope.


Fern said:
How would people in other countries react to that?

Probably about how I would I react to another country's police, let say oh Saudi Arabian police, coming up to me at home or work to conduct an investigation based on their rules and laws (meaning they can beat my feet until I tell them what I know).

It strikes me as intensly arrogant to believe we can go charging around the world acting as if we have jurisdiction there and our rules apply everwhere and supercede their rules.

The fundamental prioblem is that terrorism doesn't fit neatly into either our civilian criminal process or military process. neither were designed for it.

This case readily demonstrates the inherent weakness in our criminal system in handling these type of cases. 4th amendment rights exists here in the USA. We cannot reasonably expect other countries to follow our 4th amendment, it is OUR 4th amandment, not theirs. Consequently when we bring these people over here to our criminal system we have significant problems all working to the advantage of the criminal.

These problems were widely predicted and thus it qualifies as a bona fide "I told so" type event. The fact that one charge out of hundreds was upheld does not change that.

Fern

Ah, thanks for mentioning the inherent weakness again.

You forgot the word accused when you mentioned criminal. Or is it fair to say that you are the sort of person who figures that someone arrested for a crime is probably guilty?


If we support your position, how do you address the inherent problems with using our system to prosecute multi-national criminals? Do we treat them as representatives of their nation and their acts as acts of war? What are the options? Permanent detention? Execution? Is any kind of trial appropriate?

Or do you subscribe to a postion explained somewhere that you can link to?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Peachy. I'm sure that both the Kenyan and Tanzanian govts were entirely happy to have the FBI working with them, and made every effort to aid in the investigation. It's not like the invasion of Iraq, at all. We cooperated with friendly govts to solve crimes and to apprehend the perps.

Clearly, for the purposes of the trial at hand, the US had sufficient jurisdiction to try one of the perps. We may or may not grant extradition requests, if made, from either govt wrt the felon in question.

Fair enough?


The FBI have no jurisdiction outside of the United States. Yes, part of their mandate is to protect the country against Terrorist threats - But understand they do that *here*, not overseas.


Overseas operations are what the CIA is for.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Are you people retarded?

He got 20 years to life in prison. How is that 'free'? Either the OP is too stupid or too dishonest to realize how 'not free' that is. That is of course unless he wouldn't mind a few decades in prison and all, I hear it's just like being free.

Every murder charged was tossed. How would you feel if I murdered your family and the only charge that stuck was breaking and entering?

"Success! I would be going to jail!"

:rolleyes:
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Every murder charged was tossed. How would you feel if I murdered your family and the only charge that stuck was breaking and entering?

"Success! I would be going to jail!"

Do you even look for the reason why murder was dropped? Maybe it was because they didn't have evidence to support it? Guilty until proven innocent right?
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Do you even look for the reason why murder was dropped? Maybe it was because they didn't have evidence to support it? Guilty until proven innocent right?

Yeah, Holder tried his best to get a conviction. A for effort. :rolleyes:
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
If that's what is required, then yes. I imagine he can sit in a prison holding area until your deployment is concluded.

(Again, I'm not a lawyer, so that might be wrong, but I am aware of people held until trials, so it would seem consistent with our system.)

This is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I don't even know how to respond.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Every murder charged was tossed. How would you feel if I murdered your family and the only charge that stuck was breaking and entering?

"Success! I would be going to jail!"

:rolleyes:

As I said to the last person who tried this dumb tactic, not only should we not base our legal decisions on what someone who just had their family murdered would so, the difference in sentencing between murder and B&E is large and the difference between sentencing here is nonexistent. If you as a person are so petty that you need the label on his sentence to say the right thing in order for you to be happy, all I can say is that your considerations aren't worth worrying about.

Finally, in case all you people who were worried about Obama not violating the rights of these people enough, you do realize that Obama already reserved the right to continue to imprison these people even if the courts found them innocent, right? It's a kangaroo court, exactly as you creepy people always wanted.

Of course now the argument will shift to 'HURF BLURF THEN IT'S A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!' This is of course true, but what it really exposes is that the OP and others don't actually care about reality, all they know is that Obama isn't on their sports team and so he must be attacked at all times. It's pathetic.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
No.

The problem is using a system designed for something else in pursuit of an objective (justice) that is consequently going to be unsuccessful.

I think it supremely foolish to act as though letting obviously guilty criminals go free somehow demonstrates lofty principals and makes us look noble in the eyes of the world. It doesn't. We just look stupid, and stupid ain't a lofty principal (even though it's often practiced as one in P&N).

Fern

I see then, a kangaroo court would suit our "objective" so lets use that instead?

If he's guilty of the chanrges brought against him, then a jury will punish him.

If you don't believe in the outcome of the jury process, why even use it in the first place, for anyone?

This objection to using so called "civilian" courts makes a mockery of our justice system.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I hope most of this rhetoric is just internet thuggery since genuine disdain for our legal system and our inalienable rights will lead us to very dark places....sadly I feel we are already there....

Innocent until proven guilty has been the hallmark of justice for the entire world now for generations.....now we have added asterisks....

Are you kidding me? Of course we are already there, been on a flight in the last few days??? roadside checkpoint? been defrauded by assholes that have purchased our government?

The land of the free aint so free anymore so please make sure you have your papers ready comrade.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
I noticed Patranus changed his headline from one hilariously false one to a totally different hilariously false one.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
No.

The problem is using a system designed for something else in pursuit of an objective (justice) that is consequently going to be unsuccessful.

I think it supremely foolish to act as though letting obviously guilty criminals go free somehow demonstrates lofty principals and makes us look noble in the eyes of the world. It doesn't. We just look stupid, and stupid ain't a lofty principal (even though it's often practiced as one in P&N).

Fern

I think the stupid thing was done by the last administration which so tainted testimony by its ridiculous actions that it was crap. Yet in spite of that he is in prison. Would anyone want his freedom? I think not.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/17/gitmo-detainee-ahmed-ghailani-guilty-terrorism-charges/

Thank you Obama and Holder, you turned the death of 224 people into a joke.

You haven't got a clue what it means to be an American. Not a least bit.
What i find amazing is that you are convinced you are the most patriotic person on the northern seaboard.


That being said, Holder is a moron for coming out and saying "he's not getting off". Sorta defeating the purpose of what you're doing there, bud.
 
Last edited:

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
The Constitution is to protect The People of These United States. This guy is offered no such protection as long as he doesn't set foot on our soil. Obama brought him in, he's responsible for this. This outcome was predicted. Fuck that fucking fucker.


So agents of the US gov't aren't bound by the very rules you mentioned as soon as you step over the border line?

Do you not realize that the constitutions is just an enumeration of core principles, self evident truths, that we Americans consider inherent and inalienable?

Seriously some of you fucking chickenhawks have NO idea what this country stands for, especially for people like me that grew up in places that afford no such protections. It's that or you're just deficient in the cognitive abilities to realize the stupidity of what you're saying. Banking on the latter.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
I think the stupid thing was done by the last administration which so tainted testimony by its ridiculous actions that it was crap. Yet in spite of that he is in prison. Would anyone want his freedom? I think not.

end of thread/

but I doubt it.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Well, please explain those inherent problems. Mentioning that they exist, it seems the least you could do.
-snip-

They've already been mentioned several times.

When a crime is committed, we seal off the crime scene. We have rigerous rules regarding chain of custody etc. A mistake in adhereing to these rules means evidence is inadmissable. Criminal cases rest heavily on the evidence; you've got no admissible evidence, you've got no case.

We have enough trouble with our own police being adequately trained to comply with the above rules. Everyone is familiar with lawyers attacking the admissability of evidence allowed in court. It's SOP.

When a crime is committed abroad we don't have our police there. We have to rely on foreign police. They are unfamiliar with our procedures and requirements. This is the inherent problem. This situation is ripe with opportunity for evidence to be challenged. If we are to believe the article, this is exactly what happened in this case - (foreign) obtained evidence tossed out because of apparent non-compliance with our own domestic rules.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I think the stupid thing was done by the last administration which so tainted testimony by its ridiculous actions that it was crap. Yet in spite of that he is in prison. Would anyone want his freedom? I think not.

Presently we have only two ways to prosecute international terrorism: (1) the military approach and (2) the civilian criminal system approach.

The last administration went with the 'militray approach', this one wants to go with the 'civilian approach'.

Whatever the mistakes of the last administration, this one wants to switch venues in mid-stream and I think that just further compounds the problems. In fact, that switching creates it's own set of problems.

Fern
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
They've already been mentioned several times.

When a crime is committed, we seal off the crime scene. We have rigerous rules regarding chain of custody etc. A mistake in adhereing to these rules means evidence is inadmissable. Criminal cases rest heavily on the evidence; you've got no admissible evidence, you've got no case.

We have enough trouble with our own police being adequately trained to comply with the above rules. Everyone is familiar with lawyers attacking the admissability of evidence allowed in court. It's SOP.

When a crime is committed abroad we don't have our police there. We have to rely on foreign police. They are unfamiliar with our procedures and requirements. This is the inherent problem. This situation is ripe with opportunity for evidence to be challenged. If we are to believe the article, this is exactly what happened in this case - (foreign) obtained evidence tossed out because of apparent non-compliance with our own domestic rules.

Fern

Is an act of terror a crime or would you classify it as something else?
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Haha if you want a good read, go read the comments for this article on the Fox News site. Holyshit some wackos post on there. I thought spidey was just a fringe.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Is an act of terror a crime or would you classify it as something else?

Irrelevent and likely overly simplistic.

There is room to argue whether it's more a crime or an act of war. But that is irrelevent to the point at hand - how to prosecute acts that were committed abroad?

Our civilian criminal system was designed to prosecute (domestic) acts committed here, not abroad. Accordingly it is a poor, and faulty tool for the job. If a group of (foreign) terrorists come here, and plan and/or commit one of these acts here then I have no problem with using our civilian criminal process. It is when they are done abroad I feel it is inappropriate to use our (domestic) civilian criminal system.

Fern